Elise Johns is a first-year
from Carmel, Indiana.
CHRISTA SCHRODEL / THE DEPAUW
A plate boundary is a fault between two plates of the earth’s crust that are moving relative to each other. Over time tension between the two plates builds up. As time passes, the stress is bound to overwhelm the friction that holds the two plates in place. When this occurs the plates slip and send seismic waves through the earth’s crust, when this happens an earthquake has taken place. Depending on the force of the slip these waves can be felt in great measure on the earth’s surface.
With all of this information in mind it is not hard to predict where earthquakes are most likely to occur, the answer being along plate boundaries. Yet difficultly ensues trying to predict when earthquakes will occur. Typically, the most seismologists, geologists and other experts in the field can offer is a probability over a time span (for example: it is 65 percent likely an earthquake will occur in country X in the next 100 years).
A vague probability when given was such the case in Nepal where a magnitude 7.8 earthquake originating near the capital city of Kathmandu caused major destruction this past Saturday, April 25. Experts had predicted an earthquake would occur considering Nepal’s last major quake occurred in 1934. Geologically there is a lot of tectonic activity that occurs every year as India continues to collide with Asia. It was only a matter of time before this activity overwhelmed frictional forces holding plates in place.
Although experts in the field will never be able to tell with any considerable accuracy when earthquakes will occur, it is no where near as hard to determine areas that are at high-risk, in fact it can be done with ease. With this being said these high-risk areas have no reason not to be prepared and have measures in place to reduce damage and loss of life.
Large structures like tall buildings and bridges should be reinforced to be able to withstand shaking and swaying. Potentially hazardous buildings like nuclear power plants should be relocated to lower risk areas. National and local emergency response plans should be adopted and ready for implementation if need be.
The obvious counterargument to this proposal is financing. Many of the countries that would benefit most from this type of restructuring are among the poorest. Yet considering the mass destruction, loss of life, displacement and wounded citizens left in the wake of earthquakes in unprepared areas, impact minimization techniques are by far the better use of resources.
After an earthquake of such a large magnitude hits an unprepared area millions of dollars are instantly needed to respond to destruction of vital public utilities, infrastructure loss and care for wounded or displaced persons. The impact earthquakes can have on unprepared areas are far reaching, internal violence can ensue due to instability, diseases such as cholera can ravage populations for years afterwards due to contamination of food and water sources and citizens can be displaced from their homes indefinitely.
Many of these negative and especially far reaching impacts of earthquakes in high-risks areas can be reduced or minimized if anticipatory measures are taken. The measures should be a high priority for high-risk areas and due to the low frequency of such events can be feasibly implemented over a longer period of time and therefore do not require immediate input of large amounts of money. Considering the practicability of such plans and the reduction of destruction and loss of life, there is no reason why areas at high-risk for earthquakes should not take measures to reduce impact.